C-214. The new ”U”
Universities operate as cathedrals of ideas, based on the accumulating— only somewhat integrated and ordered –practices of humanists, artists and scientists (h,a&s) with respect to the things of nature. Humans as things included. The formula and objectivity (i.e., B-ness) of the “observer: observed” agenda reigns. Universities whose work comprises the teaching, research and service functionalities which draw upon these practices. Technologies typically aid their endeavors. Or follow on them. When they do, such endeavors may claim for sciences something of a primacy (e.g., “science and technology”)*
PP attention to the Nature of Things relative to the things of nature should change all that. As introduced earlier in “H (h,a&s) T.” But we should probably change this, to:
H,T (h,a@s) H,T
Where: H is History, the human condition; T is technology; h is the humanities; a is the arts; s is the sciences.
Why the change? Because of “within.” What’s the Involve that will provide us with a Grasp? “h,a@s” is within what? The “universe” – a thingk? “University,” the term, leans – more than nominally -- toward the “universe.” And insofar as we focus attention on the things of nature, “(h,a&s)” pretty much captures our current Grasp of matters via WISA re WITA – the university’s subject matter. With, perhaps, a correction to “(h,a&s)t” to acknowledge the contributions here and there of technology. The university: more collector than composer?
Or: the Involve of the Expansion – a fact? The Involve of the Nature of Things. (Of the three O’s [omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience] the omnipresence of the Nature of Things is the only one to hold up in light of our experience.) The Nature of Things: a fact, a phenomenon that a more complete and accurate Read of collisions has revealed. The Expansion (the Big Step”) places History and Technology both before and after “(h,a&s)”. With humans – but not just humans – there was History to be made, using technology, before the thoughtknot of “h,a&s” practices … and there is still History and Technology (re making and taking steps) to be made. This is History as the body CEM step dynamic (WTITBTA). We can learn from History as well as history – once History is known. Steps as WICF, necessitated by the Nature of Things**
***
We can sketch some of the distinctive features the new “U” might and ought to have.
1. Administration. At every level, for every field and discipline, the practices (see “missions”) of service, teaching and research should be cross-pollinated for increased step (making and taking) strength – i.e., subjected to CEM development. Which is to say, “WICF: Front and center!” WICF is purpose enough, comprising as it does the behavioral problem (e.g., “next step”) along with situational problems. (Bring service up stage?) As necessitated by the Nature of Things’ needed functionality. As exemplified in WISA’s “Help!” As characterized by R-sense procedural technology with which we can pursue CEM development within and between fields and disciplines.*** As distinguished from the selfish calls for prominence by practitioners from within this or that field or discipline. The Nature of Things changes everything. “CEM” is the way to do it, step after step, step by step. Keeping in mind that each step requires “Involve CEM Grasp.” (See C-210: “Principles and laws”.)
2. Curriculum. A new, compulsory course (History: the Nature of Things) for freshmen – any new admission, actually. About the human condition, which comprises the Nature of Things and the climates AT, ON the Frontier (here and now, from physical warming to public fear and anger), along with the attributes and relationships of ourselves as entities. History as distinguished from and in addition to histories about the human record. History (aka “Everything”) that changes everything – once we apply PP to distinguish it from the things of nature. The basis for focusing attention on WICF. About emergence and problem solving. About the concern for functionality in light of needed functionality, not just of results. Why the Expansion rather than the universe is the better focus of attention if we want our next steps AT, ON the Frontier to be more productive. Why we need R-sense to thrive in this World of Possibility. Why we need R-spacetime to complement B-spacetime ... and why we need other R-technologies to fully respond to WICF. Why Accord with the Nature of Things, as meta-strategy, calls for Adept in addition to Adapt and Adopt as step strength strategies. About “CEM says” (C-210).
3. A complete makeover of Communication, whether we think of it now as field or discipline. This because “communication” is a double point TO re WICF: It points both to the WI and to the CF needed here and now AT, ON the Frontier: the next step. As “Help!” cries so dramatically illustrate. This given the words’ work shortcomings of WISA technology (e.g., languages re words). This given the transport/message >1++ functionality ratio in our latest communication technologies (e.g., “information theory” vs. the needed points of Message theory’s information). This given the journalistic tragedy in public affairs (e.g., covid-19 surveillance; failed newspapers). This given the importance of “thought” as the Mind at the front of the step. Communication (CMU) has a centrality to human affairs second only to the Nature of Things.#
4. Nonvocational workshops. Where we stand on quality of life (O:QL-point), given the many kinds of problems yet unsolved, and the threat of more problems to come -- given the gap between needed functionality and functionality, it seems clear that jobs are far from the answer and solution to the question and problem of Work.## Indeed, Churchill would have been right to say the same thing about capitalism that he said about democracy: it’s just better than the rest (among available “-ism” alternatives).### This doesn’t require a new building on campus – just a new kind of building (behavioral architecture): the building of more relevant Help, of behavioral architecture and analysis of the molecular step … to expand, given the point of view and perspective of History and Technology, the humanities, arts & sciences of the current establishment. Emphasis would be on new procedural technology for one or more of the six problem types (O:Sp, O:S-P, O:Ps, O:P, Pbeh and Psit).@ These new procedures could well bring attention to needed tool technologies (see STEM) as well. However, it is procedural technology (aka “behavior”) where we are dangerously weak. And getting weaker: See “We.” A focus on this or that ratio could initiate the effort. Consider, for example, how the contemporary decision making/problem solving >1++ ratio might lead workshops to reconstruct election campaigns (to drag them back from personality and issue clashes to comparative analysis of problems and solutions.
***
Why is the Involve so important here? Consider the STEM case. STEM has been introduced as a framing structure for the university. As an Involve, what do we think about its Grasp?
R-sense says it fails on all four counts….
1. There is more to science, qua Know (an R-word), than the KF practices of self-designated scientists. Much more, as the extension of KT (Tries) to KMmT (Trials) demonstrates. And, for example, re step making, respecting (via PP) the difference between DIF => DIF and DIF = DIF. We need to know more about the (molecular) structure of “process.”
2. There is more to technology than tool tech. We make and use procedures too. (“Union” is one of them, utilizing “CEM” principles and technology.) Materiality – our consequentiality – is as much, if not more than, a matter of procedural tech development as it is of tool tech evolution. (See “workshops” above.)
3. There is more yet to be done with respect to engineering. “Civic” engineering is a prime example. Revolution after revolution, in America and Europe --indeed, world-wide – the nation-state has failed to be realized functionally. War after war, peace and world government have not been “secured,” The best to be said about this affair is that history has shown progress (and “will”) dialectically.
4. R-sense says that we should distinguish between the mathematics of “-1 … 0 … +1” and “0 … 1”. In this World of Possibility, given the Nature of Things, progressing from needed functionality to functionality, “0 … 1” is what matters. There’s a reason for stories about starting from nothing. All the time, AT, ON the Frontier! (Ignorance may not be blissful, but it can be functional.
***
* H. S. Kim found in a public opinion study that technology, more than science, was deemed to hold out hope for solving society’s problems.
**To which collisions attest. (See G.G. Simpson’s “all phenomena to which principles apply.”)
*** R-sense and R-technologies (e.g., ratio technology, re independence and balance, to further developmental emergence).
# Humans as “symbol users” is damning communication with faint praise. Damning humans too? CMU’s centrality has been inadequately served by Schramm’s view of it as the “crossroads” for other fields and disciplines. CMU is that, to be sure. However, WICF beckons it to be much more. Treated currently pretty much in terms of technologies and practices, it has to become much more – if functionality is to measure up to needed functionality.
## There’s “vocation” as calling as well as practice. Not to mention the (P=>S) CEM (Q=>A) dynamic. (See Topic XII.) And its P=>S/Q=>A >1+ ratio (See Topic X, re pointed questions. And see App. XXIV.)
### See the economy CEM polity dynamic – and its econ/pol >1++ ratio. (See App. XXIV, about Work [beyond concept to theoretical construct] and how R-sense and its procedural technology can Help.)
@ For example, O:P, Pbeh and Psit can be attacked together in a group script writing project, performance included. (I included such an assignment for a senior communication theory course, using the World Series payout model to grade participation.) Or: partnerships and/or teams could rewrite their university’s mission statement -- or that of some other organization. Also, a vast number of inequities (i.e., O:Sp’s distribution problems) need “CEM” attention. And communication, as a WI part of WICF (i.e., WISA’s language tech; e.g., “We have a communication problem”), sorely needs procedural tech innovation.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available in the home page, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
PP attention to the Nature of Things relative to the things of nature should change all that. As introduced earlier in “H (h,a&s) T.” But we should probably change this, to:
Where: H is History, the human condition; T is technology; h is the humanities; a is the arts; s is the sciences.
Why the change? Because of “within.” What’s the Involve that will provide us with a Grasp? “h,a@s” is within what? The “universe” – a thingk? “University,” the term, leans – more than nominally -- toward the “universe.” And insofar as we focus attention on the things of nature, “(h,a&s)” pretty much captures our current Grasp of matters via WISA re WITA – the university’s subject matter. With, perhaps, a correction to “(h,a&s)t” to acknowledge the contributions here and there of technology. The university: more collector than composer?
Or: the Involve of the Expansion – a fact? The Involve of the Nature of Things. (Of the three O’s [omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience] the omnipresence of the Nature of Things is the only one to hold up in light of our experience.) The Nature of Things: a fact, a phenomenon that a more complete and accurate Read of collisions has revealed. The Expansion (the Big Step”) places History and Technology both before and after “(h,a&s)”. With humans – but not just humans – there was History to be made, using technology, before the thoughtknot of “h,a&s” practices … and there is still History and Technology (re making and taking steps) to be made. This is History as the body CEM step dynamic (WTITBTA). We can learn from History as well as history – once History is known. Steps as WICF, necessitated by the Nature of Things**
We can sketch some of the distinctive features the new “U” might and ought to have.
1. Administration. At every level, for every field and discipline, the practices (see “missions”) of service, teaching and research should be cross-pollinated for increased step (making and taking) strength – i.e., subjected to CEM development. Which is to say, “WICF: Front and center!” WICF is purpose enough, comprising as it does the behavioral problem (e.g., “next step”) along with situational problems. (Bring service up stage?) As necessitated by the Nature of Things’ needed functionality. As exemplified in WISA’s “Help!” As characterized by R-sense procedural technology with which we can pursue CEM development within and between fields and disciplines.*** As distinguished from the selfish calls for prominence by practitioners from within this or that field or discipline. The Nature of Things changes everything. “CEM” is the way to do it, step after step, step by step. Keeping in mind that each step requires “Involve CEM Grasp.” (See C-210: “Principles and laws”.)
2. Curriculum. A new, compulsory course (History: the Nature of Things) for freshmen – any new admission, actually. About the human condition, which comprises the Nature of Things and the climates AT, ON the Frontier (here and now, from physical warming to public fear and anger), along with the attributes and relationships of ourselves as entities. History as distinguished from and in addition to histories about the human record. History (aka “Everything”) that changes everything – once we apply PP to distinguish it from the things of nature. The basis for focusing attention on WICF. About emergence and problem solving. About the concern for functionality in light of needed functionality, not just of results. Why the Expansion rather than the universe is the better focus of attention if we want our next steps AT, ON the Frontier to be more productive. Why we need R-sense to thrive in this World of Possibility. Why we need R-spacetime to complement B-spacetime ... and why we need other R-technologies to fully respond to WICF. Why Accord with the Nature of Things, as meta-strategy, calls for Adept in addition to Adapt and Adopt as step strength strategies. About “CEM says” (C-210).
3. A complete makeover of Communication, whether we think of it now as field or discipline. This because “communication” is a double point TO re WICF: It points both to the WI and to the CF needed here and now AT, ON the Frontier: the next step. As “Help!” cries so dramatically illustrate. This given the words’ work shortcomings of WISA technology (e.g., languages re words). This given the transport/message >1++ functionality ratio in our latest communication technologies (e.g., “information theory” vs. the needed points of Message theory’s information). This given the journalistic tragedy in public affairs (e.g., covid-19 surveillance; failed newspapers). This given the importance of “thought” as the Mind at the front of the step. Communication (CMU) has a centrality to human affairs second only to the Nature of Things.#
4. Nonvocational workshops. Where we stand on quality of life (O:QL-point), given the many kinds of problems yet unsolved, and the threat of more problems to come -- given the gap between needed functionality and functionality, it seems clear that jobs are far from the answer and solution to the question and problem of Work.## Indeed, Churchill would have been right to say the same thing about capitalism that he said about democracy: it’s just better than the rest (among available “-ism” alternatives).### This doesn’t require a new building on campus – just a new kind of building (behavioral architecture): the building of more relevant Help, of behavioral architecture and analysis of the molecular step … to expand, given the point of view and perspective of History and Technology, the humanities, arts & sciences of the current establishment. Emphasis would be on new procedural technology for one or more of the six problem types (O:Sp, O:S-P, O:Ps, O:P, Pbeh and Psit).@ These new procedures could well bring attention to needed tool technologies (see STEM) as well. However, it is procedural technology (aka “behavior”) where we are dangerously weak. And getting weaker: See “We.” A focus on this or that ratio could initiate the effort. Consider, for example, how the contemporary decision making/problem solving >1++ ratio might lead workshops to reconstruct election campaigns (to drag them back from personality and issue clashes to comparative analysis of problems and solutions.
Why is the Involve so important here? Consider the STEM case. STEM has been introduced as a framing structure for the university. As an Involve, what do we think about its Grasp?
R-sense says it fails on all four counts….
1. There is more to science, qua Know (an R-word), than the KF practices of self-designated scientists. Much more, as the extension of KT (Tries) to KMmT (Trials) demonstrates. And, for example, re step making, respecting (via PP) the difference between DIF => DIF and DIF = DIF. We need to know more about the (molecular) structure of “process.”
2. There is more to technology than tool tech. We make and use procedures too. (“Union” is one of them, utilizing “CEM” principles and technology.) Materiality – our consequentiality – is as much, if not more than, a matter of procedural tech development as it is of tool tech evolution. (See “workshops” above.)
3. There is more yet to be done with respect to engineering. “Civic” engineering is a prime example. Revolution after revolution, in America and Europe --indeed, world-wide – the nation-state has failed to be realized functionally. War after war, peace and world government have not been “secured,” The best to be said about this affair is that history has shown progress (and “will”) dialectically.
4. R-sense says that we should distinguish between the mathematics of “-1 … 0 … +1” and “0 … 1”. In this World of Possibility, given the Nature of Things, progressing from needed functionality to functionality, “0 … 1” is what matters. There’s a reason for stories about starting from nothing. All the time, AT, ON the Frontier! (Ignorance may not be blissful, but it can be functional.
* H. S. Kim found in a public opinion study that technology, more than science, was deemed to hold out hope for solving society’s problems.
**To which collisions attest. (See G.G. Simpson’s “all phenomena to which principles apply.”)
*** R-sense and R-technologies (e.g., ratio technology, re independence and balance, to further developmental emergence).
# Humans as “symbol users” is damning communication with faint praise. Damning humans too? CMU’s centrality has been inadequately served by Schramm’s view of it as the “crossroads” for other fields and disciplines. CMU is that, to be sure. However, WICF beckons it to be much more. Treated currently pretty much in terms of technologies and practices, it has to become much more – if functionality is to measure up to needed functionality.
## There’s “vocation” as calling as well as practice. Not to mention the (P=>S) CEM (Q=>A) dynamic. (See Topic XII.) And its P=>S/Q=>A >1+ ratio (See Topic X, re pointed questions. And see App. XXIV.)
### See the economy CEM polity dynamic – and its econ/pol >1++ ratio. (See App. XXIV, about Work [beyond concept to theoretical construct] and how R-sense and its procedural technology can Help.)
@ For example, O:P, Pbeh and Psit can be attacked together in a group script writing project, performance included. (I included such an assignment for a senior communication theory course, using the World Series payout model to grade participation.) Or: partnerships and/or teams could rewrite their university’s mission statement -- or that of some other organization. Also, a vast number of inequities (i.e., O:Sp’s distribution problems) need “CEM” attention. And communication, as a WI part of WICF (i.e., WISA’s language tech; e.g., “We have a communication problem”), sorely needs procedural tech innovation.
In light of the very useful Search feature now available in the home page, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
S